On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Phil Sorber writes:
>> Then there is a separate section of code that is called as a separate
>> function 'dumpUserConfig()' that does other role attributes like
>> 'ALTER ROLE bob SET role TO charlie'. These are the ALTER's that can
>> have depen
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 02:27:51PM -0400, Phil Sorber wrote:
> My proposal would be to table the discussion about the 'ALTER DATABASE
> SET ROLE' case because there seems to be a bit of a philosophical
> debate behind this that needs to be sorted out first.
Note: "to table the discussion" means op
Phil Sorber writes:
> Then there is a separate section of code that is called as a separate
> function 'dumpUserConfig()' that does other role attributes like
> 'ALTER ROLE bob SET role TO charlie'. These are the ALTER's that can
> have dependencies on other roles.
Right. Phrased that way, this
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Phil Sorber wrote:
>> I am going to remove that patch from the commit fest because we all
>> agree that it does not solve the problem satisfactorily. I would like
>> to re-iterate a few points, and submit a new
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Phil Sorber wrote:
> I am going to remove that patch from the commit fest because we all
> agree that it does not solve the problem satisfactorily. I would like
> to re-iterate a few points, and submit a new patch.
>
> First off, there are two distinct problems her
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Phil Sorber wrote:
>>> Ok, here is the patch that just moves the ALTER/SET pieces to the end.
>>> Can we get this included in the next commit fest?
>>
>> Y
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> I don't really
>> understand why it's not OK to just have pg_dump issue RESET ROLE at
>> appropriate points in the process; that seems like it would be
>> sufficient and not particularly ugly.
>
> Well, it was alleged that
Robert Haas writes:
> I don't really
> understand why it's not OK to just have pg_dump issue RESET ROLE at
> appropriate points in the process; that seems like it would be
> sufficient and not particularly ugly.
Well, it was alleged that that would fix this problem:
http://archives.postgresql.org
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Phil Sorber wrote:
>> Ok, here is the patch that just moves the ALTER/SET pieces to the end.
>> Can we get this included in the next commit fest?
>
> Yep, just make yourself an account and add it.
Unfortunately,
On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Phil Sorber wrote:
> Ok, here is the patch that just moves the ALTER/SET pieces to the end.
> Can we get this included in the next commit fest?
Yep, just make yourself an account and add it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Phil Sorber writes:
>> I have included two patches in this email. The first
>> (dump_user_config_last_with_set_role.patch) is an extension of my
>> first patch. In addition to moving the ALTER ROLE statements after the
>> CREATE ROLE statements it
Phil Sorber writes:
> I have included two patches in this email. The first
> (dump_user_config_last_with_set_role.patch) is an extension of my
> first patch. In addition to moving the ALTER ROLE statements after the
> CREATE ROLE statements it also inserts a SET ROLE after every connect.
> It take
I have included two patches in this email. The first
(dump_user_config_last_with_set_role.patch) is an extension of my
first patch. In addition to moving the ALTER ROLE statements after the
CREATE ROLE statements it also inserts a SET ROLE after every connect.
It takes the role parameter from the -
Robert Haas writes:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I think pg_dumpall is the very least of your problems if you do
>> something like that. We probably ought to forbid it entirely.
> Well, we had a long discussion of that on the thread Phil linked to,
> and I don't think t
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 7:51 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Phil Sorber writes:
>> Currently if you use 'ALTER ROLE rolename SET ROLE', pg_dumpall will
>> dump an 'ALTER ROLE' out right after the 'CREATE ROLE' statement.
>
> I think pg_dumpall is the very least of your problems if you do
> something like
Phil Sorber writes:
> Currently if you use 'ALTER ROLE rolename SET ROLE', pg_dumpall will
> dump an 'ALTER ROLE' out right after the 'CREATE ROLE' statement.
I think pg_dumpall is the very least of your problems if you do
something like that. We probably ought to forbid it entirely.
Hello,
The attached patch changes the location of the dumpUserConfig call in
the dumpRoles function of pg_dumpall.
This is related to this thread:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-02/msg02359.php
Currently if you use 'ALTER ROLE rolename SET ROLE', pg_dumpall will
dump an 'ALTER
17 matches
Mail list logo
